On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:24:48PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:04:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
> >
> > They all look good;
Hi.
While going through the list of orphaned packages I found at least one
that has a wnpp bug for each of its binary packages (open-amulet).
I believe this is wrong? There should only one wnpp bug per source
package, shouldn't it?
If this is right I will merge these three bugs and retitle them
c
just for the record:
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:47:03PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
>> So, I guess that's it, the FHS transition is completed !!
>>
>> Could someone confirm that before I announce the good news to the DWN
>> authors, please?
>
> No, I'm afraid that it is not
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:38:58AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:47:03PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> >> So, I guess that's it, the FHS transition is completed !!
> >>
> >> Could someone confirm that before I announce the good news to the DW
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:53:16AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:38:58AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > everything will be complete. It would probably be worth quickly checking
> > > sid too to make sure things aren't about to regress again.
5 matches
Mail list logo
